Re: Recommended datafile sizes.

backups are easier.
splitting tables and tablespaces across devices is easier,

500M is the way to go.

fuocor_at_novachem.com wrote:
>
> another advantage of smaller datafiles is that recovery time from a
> corrupted datafile or disk is faster because you can recover a single
> datafile for a point in time recovery.
>
> Regards,
> Richard Fuoco
>
> On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:56:07 -0700, mlarson <mdlarson_at_brain.uccs.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >My vote is for the smaller files. The large files must be placed on
> >larger disks, which means one drive head is responsible for more data
> >retrieval. A 500Meg file spec is a good one.
> >
> >Matt
> >
> >Tim.Middleton_at_health.wa.gov.au wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys & gals,
> >
> > I am looking for some comments on the following scenario.
> >
> > I have a tablespace which is large (about 8Gb). When creating the
> > datafiles for this tablespace, Is is better to have, say. 2 x 4Gb
> > datafiles or should i have 16x500Mb datafiles.
> >
> > What are the advantages/disadvantages of each approach.
> >
> > Thanks very much.
> >
> > Tim Middleton
> >
> > PS. Please email me.
> > PPS. Also where can i find the FAQ's for this newsgroup. Tar.
> >
> > Tim.Middleton_at_health.wa.gov.au.
> > DMR Consulting Group Australia
> > +619 222 4116
> >
> > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News
> > ====-----------------------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
> >
> >
> >
Received on Mon Apr 07 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT